other place, congratulations. >> of the motion on the floor for approval. [roll call vote] thank you, commissioners, the motion passes unanimously. you are on item number 21, 4546 president olague: after this item, we will take a break. >> items proposed for a continuance, this is the variants that the zoning administrator determined was no longer necessary.

>> a good evening, again. the planning commission continue this project after hearing with other neighborhood residents in march of this year. you instructed the project sponsor to work on issues of parking, access, and the safety. the original project had adjacent buildings on separate lots. each building contains dwelling units for a total of four in the project. no parking was provided due to access issues, and the conditions were mainly on the issues of parking access and associated safety basically due to the slope of the driveway and the fact the you would have to be backing out. there were some concerns raised about the overall scale of the buildings. in response, the project has

been modified as follows. the building at 54, the number of units was reduced from two to one. the area has been reduced in 1900 and 29 square feet. the proposed third floor is reduced in size over also that the front setback changed to 13 ft. the ground floor was raised and converted from a palette system to a turntable system to provide better maneuverability. the number of drilling units there was also was reduced from two to one. a total of from four to two. and the top floor was completely removed from that building.

the original proposal also required a parking variance because only five of the required were proposed. in the parking variance is no longer necessary. the planning department recommends that the commission approve the project as proposed. the recommendation is based on the fact that the project sponsor made significant changes to address the issues raised by the commission and the neighbors. they already restrict the height of the buildings in this area beyond the typical planning code controls. the design review board issued a letter based on the design stating that the current design conforms to their guidelines and to the project respect the space overall and is consistent with of the guidelines. president olague: dr.r.

requestor? >> some speaker cards here. >> thank you. just start, i'll get them. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is bob, my partner and i own the property at hampshire streak. can we have the overhead, please? commissioners, and this is not about me verses them. the vernal heights neighborhood block club, some members are here today. there was a thousand dollar d.r. request. not me.

insuring one ever does get built is consistent with the neighborhood character, and most importantly, to ensure development does not cause additional hazards in the neighborhood. with knowledge that the project sponsor has made major modifications in the right direction, but we are unable to resolve all the issues. the issues yet to be resolved are the nonconforming second story over the broad, the practicality, usability, and the safety of the parking arrangements, and the potential hazards associated with the sidewalk and the proposed downhill curvb cut. commissioners, we regretfully but strong fully disagree givene setback.

the setback will hide the conformity if you're standing right there in front of the building. directly across the street, the sidewalk is 5 feet higher. the buildings are 10-15 feet higher. clearly, the vision from those buildings, the reply will not be from that perspective. either will of the conforming from my house on the corner or from cesar chavez. when we left to investigate the height of the building, we found we couldn't tell how high it was. the survey doesn't have enough details. right on the lot, the survey has a couple points very far apart. they have 20 feet of elevation loss. where is that cliff?

we don't know, they don't know. they make it nice and convenient for elevations on this side, and i just took the projections from the other side and went across. this is 30 feet high? 40 feet high? 50 feet? nobody knows. here the details that we asked for on the parking arrangement. we don't have a manufacturer, and model number, no way to investigate. there is no indication on the web site land that this will work as designed. we are not experts on this stuff. but we are experts on the local conditions. local conditions are that the water drains down the curb right here. that's 1569 hampshire. the water goes to the curb, it

keeps it in the street, and what happens when it gets there? we don't know. it we want to know. we are asking youtub to disallow the garage. we are requesting a site survey so that we can tell how long the buildings are going to be when they get built there. and we ask the project sponsor to make a reasonable attempt to satisfy our concerns regarding the drainage into the parking. president olague: we will hear from supporters of the d.r. requestor at this time. [reading names] i'm sorry, there is a second

requestor. we have two d's. go ahead. >> thank you for your time. i am going to talk about the mass in relationship to the rest of the neighborhood. my name is michael mchaden. yesterday i took some pictures from the overpass. this is lucy's house and over here is 1569 hampshire street.

based on the plans that we have, i found the relative high compared to lucy's house -- here is a closer view of allthe lot. this is 1569 hampshire street. based on the dimensions that i had, i prepared some cut-outs. the purpose of this demonstration is to show that

the three-story building is not in conforming with the special use district requirement that houses in general follow the slope of the hill. down here, we can see the retaining wall, and it actually doesn't follow the slow, it is a bit more like that. is that better? we will go with that. if we bring up the line from the retaining wall, it is about that. we can see that the third story building is well above the line. it is worth saying that due to perspective, this house will come out somewhat further and it

will loom higher. here is the same view. it looks something like that. that is what i have. i hope it demonstrates -- [chime] thanks for your time. >> my issue is this, just on our block alone, on our side of history, there are two people over the age of 80. there is a 78-year-old that has had one or to any replacement surgeries. and today is my seventy fourth

birthday. thank you. there are others well over the age of 60. of the nine houses, at least six of them have seniors residing. how to increase the already slick public sidewalk would make it unusable, decreasing their ability to get around. the situation would adversely affect the older people pose a health. it is dwindling as the senior citizens by making the already steep public sidewalk even steeper, rendering it unusable, it seems like elder abuse. conspiring to commit her elder abuse for the benefit of a developer. an attorney could also sue the city for authorizing the developer to increase the steepness of the public sidewalk or cut steps in the sidewalk.

please think about it. who do you think will win the jury trial. i have a remedy. all they have to do is arranged to purchase a house on hampshire. it could be raised up 12 feet, allowing for automobile passage on the bottom floor of the proposed houses. not only would they not have the mess with a public sidewalk or have rain runoff problems, but it would provide many parking spaces. in the interest of everyone, the developer could work out the details and we could all come back and meet again. president olague: joan varney, gabriel prue. >> my name is joan varney and we

own the property adjacent to this project. we moved there in 1989 and we are the ones that maintain a lot behind the property. but like to thank the project sponsors for the concessions they have made, but i still have concerns and i would like to talk about a couple of them. first, the size of the building. six of the 10 dwellings are under 925 square feet, so if is still at 1954 square feet. it is still too large for the neighborhood and is still collar than lucy comez -- gomez's house. the setback suggested by the review board doesn't work for us and doesn't work for lucy. she would still be in the dark.

i suggest removal of the third floor, reducing the square footage to just over 1300 square feet, still larger than eight out of the 10 properties. the second issue is the cutting of the retaining wall. i have lived and worked here for 30 years, and i have seen it rained so hard that it becomes a river complete with white caps. that's its. this is a historic photo from 1920, looking east. it shows the downhill slope going from south to north and also going -- sorry, going east to west. this is 1569 hampshire as it was in 1920. but traffic, people tend to take

the easiest way down. i assure you that this became a path for the water to run down into this property. in 1927, the road was improved. they told people where to walk. while straight. they told the water where to go higher, to a drain here and to a drain here. cutting this will stem will direct the flow of water. two things i would like to request is the third floor and a detailed report showing how the project sponsors plan to mitigate the flow of this water. thank you very much. >> my name is gabriel, i would like to address the letter to the commission.

it describes him as obstructionist and not acting in good faith. he represents in the far northeast of vernal-block club. a household contributed to the filing costs. we are interested neighbors and the citizens trying to exercise a process established by this commission. perhaps it is the commission at a process that we object to. we seek to keep our environment on a human scale. we are the ones having to respond. many of us are retired, disabled, widowed seniors. the family will recoup all expenses and make a profit. the average house costs $703,800. i requested that you deny a third floor with the sidewalks

low. slope. president olague: are there any other speakers in support of the d.r. requestor? please come to the microphone at this time. >> i live directly across the street from the proposed development. i am a senior and contributor. i requested that the height to be modified to 54 so that it stepped down the slopes like everyone else and all of the other houses. the broad -- which is the same grade driveway. he has put a turntable that works if you have only two sub- compact cars, otherwise it

does not work. they promised us at the last meeting, that he would take care of lighting at the site. in winter, it becomes a dark hole. i have a handout for the board. can you pass that out? he had agreed to provide this lighting based on the model lighting ordinance, a national lighting ordnance created by the international dark skies, so that the lights are not dependent on someone coming home, they turn on when there is insufficient daylight. they suggested that actor -- after a four hours of light, they done with motion sensors.

the also request alike to be 60 degrees, actually put the light on the sidewalk. 60 degrees of from straight down. he agreed that he was going to do this and all of a sudden, he said they were not going to do it until you agree that the building is find other than that. he has held us captive. then he backs out on what he is going to do. we also have a lot of babies and carriages, i remember talking to you about that before. the turntable he is proposed will have us be unable to look up the palate. the lighting that i have given to you is taken from the model

lighting ordnance, a national ordnance that he agreed would conform with and now he is backing out. he has talked about modifying the garages. he has only raised the for a couple feet, the driveway is the same size and s[chime] president olague: thank you. >> i have to change my glasses because i can't see. >> can you pull the microphone down and speak right into the microphone? >> my name is lucy gomez, i have

been living there since 1968, december 5. i have been there 43 years. that wall has been there since 1923, i think. so now after n.y. 83 years, they want to start building? why didn't they built before they put a wall of? ok? i raised my family there. he is right next to construction. ok? they want to put up that building, and the walls will look like a prison wall. had the worst part of its is that they have a four-car garage. can you imagine, one by one, a family with four cars taking turns to get out? when you have to go to work, i

would never recommend anyone to fit into that project. i am hoping and praying that you don't let anything, a permit to go through because it would be devastating for the community there. it is very hard the park. and what are the other people going to do with their cars? they can't find a place to park. it is very difficult. i wonder when they are going to start listening. i don't think it will be the perfect thing, or the ideal project. president olague: are there additional speakers in support of the d.r. requestor? >> good afternoon, i'm a member of the design review board.

you got a letter from us that mentions that in the process of several meetings, we asked for modifications to this project. the last time we were here, the commission asked for a different look at this. we looked at the most recent plan and thought that if that the east slope building guidelines which include things like side setbacks, entrances on the side of these houses. we like the fact that they step out at the back of a lot. and we ask for a front set back on the top floor that people are discussing the that it would not have as much impact on the street. that is the kind of thing that we generally looked at in all of the project we see.

we have said that a lot of the other technical issues, the engineering issues are not really something that arour designer of you can deal with. i am sure that the planning department doesn't even have to deal with some of these things. i would like to request that the staff for somebody record a restriction for an easement so that the broad parking spaces are noted -- garage parking spaces are noted so the parking requirement is met in two buildings. i would not like to worry about that five years from now. thank you. president olague: is there na any -- >> reset, please?

good evening, commissioners. i am an architect in the city and a member of the american institute of architects. i have unfortunately only done this case for six days, but i have endeavored to do what i was asked to do, to verify that the buildings on this site meet the height limit. i have worked at the special use district. he asked questions of the zoning in administrator. basically, hthere is not the daa presented to adequately and per the planning the measurements of height, know what this

building should or should not be. the blue line is the 30-foot height limit. 3/4 of the top floor exceed the height limit. they have a way of shifting math. you can take from the front of the building and put it at the back of the building and to be a little bit over the height limit, but you can never exceed 40 feet. the problem with this formula, if you go from up here, all the way down, we don't know whether the parade is at that point because it is not provided. why ask if he checks of the math, he says we don't check the math. if they showed that indicate the height limit, we accept that the engineer has verified that. so how can i help my client

verify that the building meets the height limit if there is not enough data to do so? how answer was, -- the answer was, we don't go into that detail. even when you hire an outside consultant, you can't, with the the data that is presented, know if the building exceeds the height limit. it is not a matter of coming back later for a variance. in '54 and the 60, there are guardrails or around the roof. if we are already at the height limit or exceeding it, and have already taken a story and barely half that the height limit. i would suggest that it did not meet the height limit before they did so. the same is true of 54.